*This fan is everything I wanted in a desk fan and more. It looks great for **Fastly.Cool** my room , it puts out a wonderful amount of air. Is very easy to use.I just keep it plugged in.*
Most videos take so long to get the the point with things. I like how This video is so short and to the point, while still giving a lot of information. Very well done!
John Meise the thing I hate about them is that they charge hundreds of $$, yet you can't do maintenance on them, so if it needs so much as oil, too bad
Dyson fans require filters (as the fans could easily gunk up since they're enclosed) and higher power motors to do what they do. There are also cheap Chinese versions available that sell for half the price but still is twice as expensive as any other electric fan
I feel you but you gotta admit that is some crazy tech right there for a fan. The price IS justified but it’s just not a product designed for you or me :/
Usually stick figure animatics are either on the amusing side of crude or just ugly. This is the most appealing and stylized stick figure art style I've seen on youtube
EVERY fan entrains air on the outside of the stream... and every fan creates a low pressure area behind the fan. There's only 2 differences here. 1. The fan inside is pressure sealed (like a computer fan). No air gets around it, so that fan can operate at a lower speed, but higher pressure inside. This means that it can push the air out the slits MUCH faster. 2. The center of the air path is not blocked by a motor and a slow spinning propeller (the centers of a propeller are moving a lot slower than the outside of a propeller, and move less air... but in THIS fan design, the center of the fan will EVENTUALLY be moving air as fast as any other part of the air stream.
You seem to be implying that the Dyson model is somehow better at moving air at high speed (factoring in also noise level) compared to a regular fan, but it's very clearly not. The design is mostly for the "cool" factor, a gimmick. It is not efficient, much less "more efficient" than a regular fan. Look up a comparison video on RU-vid, where actual measurements are made. I'd write the title of it, but RU-vid would delete this comment (as it already has once).
@@lako8368 I wish there was a review where someone removed the air filter. I know that would remove the purpose of it but yeah the results are laughable. maybe without it being blocked they might not be as awful
Cheers for the quick explanation. Googled 'bladeless fan' outta random curiosity and felt like I was reading something wrong when it said it had blades. Why name'm 'bladeless fan' when coulda gone for 'Coanda Fan'?
I was so disappointed when I learned they weren't really "bladeless." I assumed it was ionizing air somehow and used charge to propel the air or something.
@@SirDella Ok i currently i testing best 3d print settings and materials for this. Now just i need buy some parts like electric motors, controller ect.
After watching a few of these bladeless fan videos I still don't know if they are any more efficient than standard fans. If they are more efficient at moving air, why haven't airline companies incorporated them into aircraft? My guess is the 15 times more air isn't a big deal compared to ducted fans or prop driven aircraft. No blades may be safer for indoor fans in your house, but it's not a concern for commercial jets. Efficiency is though.
Yea, the 15 times the air thing is irrelevant. You can throw out a little bit of air at a high velocity or a lot of air at a low velocity and you end up with the same airflow. Dyson does the former and other fans to the latter.
Has anyone here owned one of these and compared it to a conventional pedestal fan? The design made no sense to me, essentially an enclosed ducted impeller sucking air in through the base then forcing it up through the body into an annular hollow blade. First issue is the uneven pressure the further the ring is away from the base i.e. less pressure at the top of the ring. Next issue is how hard the motor is going to have to work to pull air in and duct it up through the ring, I just could not see how this would be more efficient than a conventional bladed fan which would be under less load and not have to force air through ducting. With these thoughts in mind I surmised the Dyson would not only have to worker harder to match a specified air flow similar to a conventional fan, it is likely to also be noisier. I purchased a Dyson AM07 and a Sunbeam DC motor pedestal fan. Sure enough the Dyson had to be set to 4 to match the lowest setting on the conventional fan and was noticeably louder than the near silent conventional fan. The Dyson looks great but isn’t a great product, it pushed less air and has a serious noise impact if you ramp up the speed to get to a decent air flow. After a week the Dyson was moved to the study with the Sunbeam in its former lounge position. Another issue was dust clogging at the air inlet holes around the base, clogging the duct and the annular blade outlet, it’s a pain to keep cleaning. Ultimately the Dyson was sold. A conventional fan is quieter, more efficient and easier to clean.
Long story short. It's has a fan that blows wings that energizes the airflow enough to draw in more air with entrainment AND exploits the coanda effect Change the fan for a v8 engine and you'll have a 2012 F1 car diffuser. In concept at least
so basically. by tricking the fans with science, we can convince the air to grab a bunch of their air buddies and get them into a huge pyramid scheme of cooling off my balls.
I came here to hear a story about your grandma and her fans, leading onto a moment of your childhood where you thought you wouldn't make it. THEN I expected the instructional video. Geez.
@@Exilum Why? Is this some olympic event broken down into blade classes? It's a fan with pathetic airflow that is loud and priced an order of magnitude above what it is worth. Also, it's probably not even the same type of fan as most desk fans. I'm pretty sure it is a centrifugal fan with an impeller because it needs to generate a higher pressure to squeeze air out of those little slits at high velocity so a blade size comparison is like comparing apples and oranges.
@@jonathanhill2703 Well I said what I said for the simple reason that there isn't a single factor. Comparing a bladeless fan to a bladed fan would only show difference in type should the blade sizes and rpm be the same. On a side note, you seem to dislike bladeless fans due to their poor performance, but don't forget they're not the same products. A bladeless fan is made to look cleaner, not perform better. It's like comparing apple and oranges, as you said, except on a wider scale.
Obviously you can't get something for nothing so you trade higher pressure at the fan for higher volume. The question is why not just start with a bigger fan? What is the purpose of using a small fan and then a multiplier?
smitajky BINGO! There is no something for nothing! You trade off velocity or volume. Period. With a given source of airflow, it can be manipulated for either higher velocity or higher volume(pressure), but not both. It is, in essence, a gimmick. I have a Dyson vacuum cleaner and it is a gimmick. It is a very powerful brushless motor, which is not a gimmick, coupled with decent airflow management. With a regular vacuum cleaner, if you block the inlet, the and there is no leakage, suction will be reduced, and the motor will overheat. If you took a perfectly sealed syringe, and picked up, say, a ping pong ball, it is the DIFFERENCE in pressure holding the ball against the tip of the syringe. If the seal is truly perfect, the ball would stay indefinitely. But there is no such thing. But if you were to make the seal slightly imperfect and let just a little air in with the vacuum, the ball will stay, but he vacuum DIFFERENCE must be maintained, and the syringe piston would have to be miles long to maintain that for any length of time. With the Dyson vacuum cleaner, there is a slight bypass which allows vacuum to continue, and the motor is very powerful. So you can completely block the vacuum cleaner and suction continues. With a conventional type, of you block the inlet, suction is reduced, and you need to unclog it to continue. Same with a Dyson, but the bypass behind the block allows vacuum to continue, and the very powerful motor masks the real difference in pressure. Some other modern vacuum have employed the bypass, but not as subtly as the Dyson. So bottom line, if you are suing the hose in a Dyson and block it with said ping pong ball, vacuum will hold the ball there until the motor overheats and a sensor shuts it off. With other types, the bypass reduces vacuum, but they won’t shut off unless the the bypass is also blocked. So in essence, the Dyson is a gimmick . I’ve spent more on vacuum cleaners in the last 5 years than any human should, only to discover that there are compromises for each and all of them. The Dyson is NOT THE BEST. It is marginally more powerful when new. But as the filters clog, it performs poorly, as expected. They all do. The Rainbow water filter vacuum is the best ever made, with consistent performance, be use you “clean the filter” with every use. But a pain in the ass. Where do you put that nasty water? Back yard? Yeah, wait till the dog or other critters get into it. Through a mesh screen and then the nasty water down the commode? Sure, but a pain in the ass. Blade less fan? Gimmick. Just the act of “forcing the air” through the slits makes it less efficient. It may seem neat, but there is no more air coming at you than with the initial fan in the first place, it’s just redistributed. I call bullshit.
